The problem with trying to branch IronRuby like that is the DLR is
likely to change from underneath it. Not that the idea hasn't
occurred to me before, but it's really not a viable option in this
scenario.
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:34 AM, Ryan Riley
<ryan.riley at panesofglass.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 08:50:48 -0600, M. David Peterson
> <m.david at xmlhacker.com> wrote:
> > So while Charlie is correct: The IronRuby
> > project needs to become more community oriented, that community
> > orientation needs to come from not only MSFT's direction, but the
> > communities direction as well.
> >
>> Very well stated. And Wayne's list certainly helps in giving a better
> understanding of what is left. Such a status sent weekly (at a minimum)
> could certainly help keep everyone up-to-date. Also, nothing prevents anyone
> from starting their own git or mercurial branch. If the community wants to
> actively work by that method, by all means we should. That could potentially
> even help with the community aspect. The only thing holding anyone back is a
> desire to stay completely on the same page (a la subversion and rubyforge).
> Better and more frequent communication would better serve the community in
> this case.
>> --
> Ryan Riley
>ryan.riley at panesofglass.org>http://www.panesofglass.org/> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
>Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org>http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core>>
--
Michael Letterle
[Polymath Prokrammer]
http://blog.prokrams.com